New City Sites as of 1260AD

[civman2000]

the ones I voted for are all of the ones with 50% or more...I must have good taste

[Shaka Naldur]

number 8 and number 5 one square north-east
if we are going to conquer the egyptians and the americans to bulid more cities is not very useless...

[CannonFodder]

You can never have too many cities.

[shade]

Originally posted by CannonFodder
You can never have too many cities.

building new cities could also make an end to the renaming quarrel...the cities can start with those names....

Shade

[CannonFodder]

Damn straight!

[cavebear]

Originally posted by Shaka Naldur
number 8 and number 5 one square north-east

Site 5 is the center of the circle, not where the number is pasted. It would get all 3 Whales.

if we are going to conquer the egyptians and the americans to bulid more cities is not very useless...

No offense meant, but did you really mean "useless"? In context, "useful" (the opposite idea) seems to make more sense. In other words, I interpret your thought to mean that we should not build new cities if we are going to conquer existing ones.

If that is the case, I disagree. There are several sites for new cities that would be very productive and self-supporting very quickly. We have enough Musketeers to land a Settler and a Musketeer at several sites so that they would have immediate defense.

In addition, a few new cities would give us some places to share the support cost of our many military units. Apolyton, for example is supporting 6 units at a cost of 3 shields per turn. I would to relieve a few cities of that burden and take advantage of the "3 Free Unit" support we get as a Monarchy. For each new city we build, we came home 3 units at no cost.

And most of those new sites are near other civ's, so we will want 3 units in them anyway. Those freed-up shields will help the existing cities produce more Caravans and Crusaders, and we need them.

[James Adams]

I advise a slow but complete city building in every site suggested!

But let the voters decide!

[Shaka Naldur]

Originally posted by cavebear

No offense meant, but did you really mean "useless"? In context, "useful" (the opposite idea) seems to make more sense. In other words, I interpret your thought to mean that we should not build new cities if we are going to conquer existing ones.

If that is the case, I disagree. There are several sites for new cities that would be very productive and self-supporting very quickly. We have enough Musketeers to land a Settler and a Musketeer at several sites so that they would have immediate defense.

In addition, a few new cities would give us some places to share the support cost of our many military units. Apolyton, for example is supporting 6 units at a cost of 3 shields per turn. I would to relieve a few cities of that burden and take advantage of the "3 Free Unit" support we get as a Monarchy. For each new city we build, we came home 3 units at no cost.

And most of those new sites are near other civ's, so we will want 3 units in them anyway. Those freed-up shields will help the existing cities produce more Caravans and Crusaders, and we need them.

yes, i´m sorry, i meant useful

well, we´ll have to deal with a lot of cities,

I agree with all you´ve said but if we are getting around 8 cities (maybe more) from egyptians and americans, and we build 12 cities more it will seem a ICS (is the awy to spell it??) game

but is just my humble opinion

[cavebear]

I don't mean we should build *many* new cities, just a few on those locations that are *really* good. I don't want an ICS game either. As you said, we will be conquering enough additional cities soon.

[JCP]

Originally posted by CannonFodder
You can never have too many cities.

Beware : we cannot exceed 255 city in the whole world !

[James Adams]

we need to have more cities, we need to divide our population more to survive a successfull attack for rival civs!

[JCP]

Originally posted by adamsj

How adamsj may have a random a vatar !